Bible "versions"?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,369
13,730
113
The goal is to be perfect. Remember, perfect means complete, not lacking in anything. In order to be perfect, one needs a perfect Bible to read and study to be thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
So then a Bible that is “complete, not lacking in anything” is needed. That description includes many translations in English. There is no possible way a person could make a valid argument that only the KJV qualifies.
 
Aug 20, 2021
1,863
310
83
i know the king James copies an erroneous redundancy.But the translation is still ok.It has things that don't sound right 2 the ear.1"The swallow knows the time of the coming."2 Abrahams bosom 3 Simon who is called nigger. many things like that.beside all the words that r out of use.
 

Gardenias

Well-known member
Oct 27, 2020
2,281
1,117
113
U.S.A.
Mat.4:4 But he answered and said, It is written,Man shall not live by bread alone,but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Zec.4:6.......,Not by might,nor but power,but by my Spirit......

Myself,I prefer the KJV bc it was my first and I love the the flow of the language which I understand.I do not trust YouTube,tv or written commentaries by man.
Thompson chain reference has interconnecting scripture or where scripture of same is found,a concordance for location of word and grouped categories to make understanding easier.

I love reading,it soothes my soul.

God is big enough to even reach us if there's no WRITTEN word.
He is a Spirit and must be worshipped in Spirit and truth. The Spirit will lead us into truth if we allow him to.

Everyone must yield to God's leading and allow him to direct our way.

Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path !
 
Aug 20, 2021
1,863
310
83
i read much of that stuff the q rum stuff...Their r basically only 2 versions...with a trillion variations
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,097
3,683
113
i know the king James copies an erroneous redundancy.But the translation is still ok.It has things that don't sound right 2 the ear.1"The swallow knows the time of the coming."2 Abrahams bosom 3 Simon who is called nigger. many things like that.beside all the words that r out of use.
1. easy to understand
2. Abraham's bosom was an actually place located in the heart of the earth.
3. It's Niger. It's an actual place.
 
Aug 20, 2021
1,863
310
83
1. easy to understand
2. Abraham's bosom was an actually place located in the heart of the earth.
3. It's Niger. It's an actual place.
Not that sharp some times "John146 " your right about the spelling ..I said it did not sound right 2 the ear. Abraham's bosom
Act 13:1
Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,369
13,730
113
All new versions lack truth, they lack verses, and important key words.
As compared to what? I really don’t want to have to repeat myself about the KJV not being the standard.
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,188
113
was discussing the Bible yesterday with a friend, she was reading ESV and she was saying she was disatisfied with it, and her preacher, who is Jewish, went over every single line and word and now she wants to find a study Bible.

I showed her mine which was KJV that has plenty of margins to write notes next to it.

the only thing was this (messianic) jewish preacher uses his own translation and was quibbling over the word 'impossible' in Hebrews 6:4. She was saying he claimed it was not 'impossible' it was more like 'impotent' in Hebrew and Im like what. That dont make sense.

Maybe he means 'improbable' ? But thats the thing, so many preachers try and argue that a ceetain word is NOT a certain word in scripture to give them wiggle room. If it really was 'impotent' as he claims then he must have a 'special' version that nobody else has!

oh well. I was like what, but I didnt try to argue with her. I just said that dont make sense. I read KJV.
 
Aug 8, 2021
620
37
28
Can you explain why? Give evidence and examples? Thanks.
Like I said, no translation is perfect... but if you want to know some specifics with KJV...

Starting with the beginning of the bible... I don't believe Genesis 1:1 is a complete thought, but is rather a clause that continues until verse 3. In verse one, in my opinion, the most accurate translations that come to mind are Young's literal, ArtScrolls Tanach, The Hebrew Bible, or David Greggs translation.

I'm sure you know of the word Easter in Acts 12:4... should be Passover (Pesach). There are little grammar things like the word "and" in "slew and hanged" in Acts 5:30 (Small thing, but changes the meaning). In Romans 3:4 I don't agree with the translation "God forbid".

There is also issues with some of the writings the KJV translated from: Romans 22:19 should be "scroll" not "book". There's the Johannine Comma issue with 1 John 5:7-8. I believe Due 32:8 should be "sons of god" not "sons of Israel".... etc. For a person who has not made up their mind on whether the translations from the Septuagint, Textus Receptus and/or Dead Sea Scrolls is the best source; the LSV might be a good option for them. It shows the debated scriptures in brackets when reading along with the verse.

The other issue I have with the KJV is not about the translation specifically, but with the language used. Because certain words are not used in the English language anymore or have different meanings today, reading the KJV can cause confusion to many readers:

In multiple verses the KJV uses the word "offend" as to "entrap" or "cause to sin".... but that's not what the word means today. In Psalms 4:2 and 5:6 the KJV uses the word "leasing" for telling lies/falsehoods. In Lev 15:24 and 15:33 the KJV uses "flowers" to define "menstrual discharge". Luke 15:16 - "He would fain"??? The average person is not going to know what that means. Those are just a few of many examples of words that can cause confusion to readers. Maybe its just me, but I would rather invest my time learning the language this was translated from, then to have to constantly look up definitions to make sure I'm understanding the translation I'm using.
 
Aug 8, 2021
620
37
28
The goal is to be perfect. Remember, perfect means complete, not lacking in anything. In order to be perfect, one needs a perfect Bible to read and study to be thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
No man can be perfect (without error)... neither can any bible translation. To believe one can is imperfection within itself.
 
Aug 8, 2021
620
37
28
was discussing the Bible yesterday with a friend, she was reading ESV and she was saying she was disatisfied with it, and her preacher, who is Jewish, went over every single line and word and now she wants to find a study Bible.

I showed her mine which was KJV that has plenty of margins to write notes next to it.

the only thing was this (messianic) jewish preacher uses his own translation and was quibbling over the word 'impossible' in Hebrews 6:4. She was saying he claimed it was not 'impossible' it was more like 'impotent' in Hebrew and Im like what. That dont make sense.

Maybe he means 'improbable' ? But thats the thing, so many preachers try and argue that a ceetain word is NOT a certain word in scripture to give them wiggle room. If it really was 'impotent' as he claims then he must have a 'special' version that nobody else has!

oh well. I was like what, but I didnt try to argue with her. I just said that dont make sense. I read KJV.
There is issues with all bible translations. But even if we only had one source text that was never changed, the whole world used that same text, and we all spoke the same language.... there would still be differences in interpretation because of pride, ego, ignorance and other sinful and imperfect components of mankind.
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
4,098
959
113
Like I said, no translation is perfect... but if you want to know some specifics with KJV...

Starting with the beginning of the bible... I don't believe Genesis 1:1 is a complete thought, but is rather a clause that continues until verse 3. In verse one, in my opinion, the most accurate translations that come to mind are Young's literal, ArtScrolls Tanach, The Hebrew Bible, or David Greggs translation.

I'm sure you know of the word Easter in Acts 12:4... should be Passover (Pesach). There are little grammar things like the word "and" in "slew and hanged" in Acts 5:30 (Small thing, but changes the meaning). In Romans 3:4 I don't agree with the translation "God forbid".

There is also issues with some of the writings the KJV translated from: Romans 22:19 should be "scroll" not "book". There's the Johannine Comma issue with 1 John 5:7-8. I believe Due 32:8 should be "sons of god" not "sons of Israel".... etc. For a person who has not made up their mind on whether the translations from the Septuagint, Textus Receptus and/or Dead Sea Scrolls is the best source; the LSV might be a good option for them. It shows the debated scriptures in brackets when reading along with the verse.

The other issue I have with the KJV is not about the translation specifically, but with the language used. Because certain words are not used in the English language anymore or have different meanings today, reading the KJV can cause confusion to many readers:

In multiple verses the KJV uses the word "offend" as to "entrap" or "cause to sin".... but that's not what the word means today. In Psalms 4:2 and 5:6 the KJV uses the word "leasing" for telling lies/falsehoods. In Lev 15:24 and 15:33 the KJV uses "flowers" to define "menstrual discharge". Luke 15:16 - "He would fain"??? The average person is not going to know what that means. Those are just a few of many examples of words that can cause confusion to readers. Maybe its just me, but I would rather invest my time learning the language this was translated from, then to have to constantly look up definitions to make sure I'm understanding the translation I'm using.
Here is an ironic view, you don’t want the KJV English because it’s too old but you want to learn that is an older language and inclined to be aid perhaps by lexicons which have been authored by one, two ore three by the most and sometimes these lexicons available have been influenced by the outside forces you didn’t even know. Of course, many of your complaints about the KJV can be studied and make research. Is not the word of God intended for such study? I see that you have many issues in your paragraph 2-4 but why? Could you explain your reasons why is it wrong in the KJV? Thanks
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,369
13,730
113
Of course, many of your complaints about the KJV can be studied and make research. Is not the word of God intended for such study?
No.

The goal of study is to get to know and understand the Word, and through it to know God better. Studying to determine which texts are canonical/most accurate/most reliable is a necessary task (for many) but does nothing directly to help us know God.
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,188
113
There is issues with all bible translations. But even if we only had one source text that was never changed, the whole world used that same text, and we all spoke the same language.... there would still be differences in interpretation because of pride, ego, ignorance and other sinful and imperfect components of mankind.
impotent and impossible are kinda of completely different words...in english anyway!

lol

also if it was 'impotent' that would change the meaning, to something sort of sexual?! although people do use 'omnipotent' to mean Godly.

Anyway, what she said he said was you have to CROSS out the word 'impossible' in your Bibles (whatever version it is) and replace it with the word 'impotent'.

im like um ok. Right.
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,188
113
Im not crossing out any words in my Bible!
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
4,098
959
113
No.

The goal of study is to get to know and understand the Word, and through it to know God better. Studying to determine which texts are canonical/most accurate/most reliable is a necessary task (for many) but does nothing directly to help us know God.
That’s quite a good one to have a goal while studying in order for us to understand his words and we can know God far better. As far as the Bible is concerned, God’s words never change as he is and I have it today.
 
Aug 8, 2021
620
37
28
Here is an ironic view, you don’t want the KJV English because it’s too old but you want to learn that is an older language and inclined to be aid perhaps by lexicons which have been authored by one, two ore three by the most and sometimes these lexicons available have been influenced by the outside forces you didn’t even know. Of course, many of your complaints about the KJV can be studied and make research. Is not the word of God intended for such study? I see that you have many issues in your paragraph 2-4 but why? Could you explain your reasons why is it wrong in the KJV? Thanks
I did not say I didn't want the KJV because it was too old. Let me rephrase what I did say: IF the English translation I choose requires me to constantly look up what the English word means, it would make more sense to me to invest my time in to learning the language in which the translation comes from. I have no problem with doing a deeper study into scripture, but isn't one of the main points of having a translation so that you can understand the writing in your native tongue? I would rather spend my time learning Hebrew words than learning new-old English words. For the English translations I do choose, I want them to be as accurate as possible while me still being able to understand the English words.

As far as the specific verses that I brought up, a simple google search on them will give you some more insight if interested. The translations of scripture I mentioned also have some sort of commentary or preface/introduction to explain. It would mean more coming from people fluent in the languages than coming from me.